opinionfandomcom-20200213-history
Aetherometry: Fact or Fiction
Aetherometry is highly contentious field of inquiry. Is it science or pseudo-science, fact or fiction. You can debate that here: fact v. fiction Participants DA is here. Batmarx is here... Fact It is unbelievable that someone tries to label something as pseudoscience using this kind of arguments! There can be no such word as Aetherometry in a truly scientific sense. Measurement of something that does not exist, is an oxymoron. Aether was the fabled imponderable media needed to understand the behavior of light, before the completed EM spectrum model of the 20th century. It (aether) is no longer needed as the starting point of modern physics, and is therefor unscientific to allow it to infect current understanding. DA 23:38, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) (then we have to explain the discovery of the dark energy that defies all the previous theories of pure empty vacuum and opened the human perspective to new visions of the concept of aether! Laurence Krauss an established modern physicist has a lot to say about this...) "Well, seeing the articles on Wikipedia, plus the arguments on the talk pages, I'd have to fall into this camp. I just stumbled on this description by Martin Gardner from 1952 1": (and this is called scientific way to refute a scientific theory!) 1. The pseudo-scientist has a profound intellectual superiority complex. (Like Tesla, Maxwell or Bohr to mention a few?) 2. The pseudo-scientist regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article: The Hermit Scientist). (Coreas never refused to peer review their discoveries) 3. The pseudo-scientist believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur. (So there is no way that revolutionary scientific ideas are INDEED persecuted in their era? Did the books of Wilhelm actually burnt in 1957 or no?) 4.'' (SInstead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked. He writes: "A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one''".( Einstein cannot be criticisized otherwise you are unscientific? And this is called scientific logic?? or this is blatantly a religious one?) 5. He coins neologisms. (Like relativity? lol) Guilty on several counts, Point 3 particularly. '(particularly on Point 3 Coreas are not guilty after all!)Their web pages attacking Wikipedia gives me the distinct impression that the people behind Aetherometry are are seriously bonkers. And I have difficulty with the creation of a vast theoretical edifice, overturning most of physics, based on observations on that 18th century (non)-precision instruument,the gold leaf electroscope. And when they start rambling into orgones, and energy radiated from a Tesla coil undetectable (so far as I can decipher from the abstracts) by anything but their trusty electroscope, I start thinking of N-rays2'' '''Actually our anonymous coward is guilty of several counts and he proves his way that he is no related with scientific logic no matter what and he unleashes a pure dogmatic and quasi religious way of thinking to refute something (he confesses) have no idea. Scientifically if you want to refute something you have to prove where EXACTLY is wrong and not deploy a ready to use schema that apriori draw conclusions without proper research. Modern science is in confusion anyway. The string theory, the multiple theories about the dark energy, the uncerntainties about the existence of multiverse are just a few examples about the general confusion. Yet all these are treated as normal and scientific whereas aetherometry is treated without proof as a pseudoscience! The hypocricy is enormous. The aetherometry is a relative new promising theory that needs further study and research and not adhoc unscientific rejection. So probably aetherometry is a fact that needs to be clarified deeper... Fiction There can be no such word as Aetherometry in a truly scientific sense. Measurement of something that does not exist, is an oxymoron. Aether was the fabled imponderable media needed to understand the behavior of light, before the completed EM spectrum model of the 20th century. It (aether) is no longer needed as the starting point of modern physics, and is therefor unscientific to allow it to infect current understanding. DA 23:38, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Well, seeing the articles on Wikipedia, plus the arguments on the talk pages, I'd have to fall into this camp. I just stumbled on this description by Martin Gardner from 1952 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fads_and_Fallacies_in_the_Name_of_Science: * 1. The pseudo-scientist has a profound intellectual superiority complex. * 2. The pseudo-scientist regards other researchers as idiotic, and always operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article: The Hermit Scientist). * 3. The pseudo-scientist believes there is a campaign against their ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur. * 4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked. He writes: "A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one". * 5. He coins neologisms. Guilty on several counts, Point 3 particularly. Their web pages attacking Wikipedia gives me the distinct impression that the people behind Aetherometry are are seriously bonkers. And I have difficulty with the creation of a vast theoretical edifice, overturning most of physics, based on observations on that 18th century (non)-precision instruument,the gold leaf electroscope. And when they start rambling into orgones, and energy radiated from a Tesla coil undetectable (so far as I can decipher from the abstracts) by anything but their trusty electroscope, I start thinking of N-rayshttp://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm So I vote pseudoscience.Anonymous Cowherd 23:42, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)